International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2020005048 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/224,568 07/31/2016 Keith William Grueneberg YOR920160866US1 7493
21254 7590 12/23/2020
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
YANG, ELISA H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEITH WILLIAM GRUENEBERG, BONG JUN KO,
CHRISTIAN MAKAYA, MIKHIL NANDKISHORE MASII,
JORGE JOSE ORTIZ, SWATI RALLAPALLI,
THEODOROS SALONIDIS, RAHUL URGAONKAR,
DINESH C. VERMA, and XIPING WANG
____________

Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed
April 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief filed June 24, 2020 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 20, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action mailed December 20, 2019 (“Final Act.”). Appellant
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claims relate “generally to a recipe recommendation
method, and more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to a system,
method, and recording medium for understanding fine-grained user behavior
and preferences to provide better cooking or shopping planners.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 15,
reproduced below, with bracketed matter, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
15. A recipe recommendation system, said system
comprising:
[a] a processor; and
[b] a memory, the memory storing instructions to cause the
processor to:
[c] infer a fine-grained user food profile from user data via
a root cause analysis and further infer the fine-grained user food
profile from the user data using latent semantic indexing,
compound term processing, or bag of words modelling with
ingredients in a recipe, the user data comprising a combination
of a user input parameter, a recipe history of the recipe, extracted
features from social media and website browsing history;
[d] recommend a recipe for a user based on a comparison
of the fine-grained user food profile with recipe data stored in a
database, the recommending factoring a time of year when
recommending the recipe;
[e] extract ingredients from the recommended recipe; and
[f] create a shopping list from the extracted ingredients,
[g] wherein the creating the shopping list substitutes one of the
extracted ingredients with a different ingredient based on a
dietary restriction, and

identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

3
[h] wherein the recommended recipe and the shopping list
are output as a data file to a device of the user,
[i] further comprising outputting the shopping list to a
store to adjust an inventory order of the store according to the
ingredients or the shopping list,
[j] wherein the creating infers the ingredients already
present at the user’s home by analyzing how frequently the user
buys an item and when the last that the user bought the item based
on the fine-grained user food profile and creates the shopping list
omitting the ingredients already present at the user’s home.

REJECTION
1. Claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
2. Claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being indefinite.
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellant argues claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 as a group. Appeal
Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 1–7. We select independent claim 15 as representative.
The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 15. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
A. Section 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

4
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

5
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and
Flook); see also id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77) (alteration in original).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”).2 “All USPTO personnel

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

6
are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 51; see also October 2019
Update 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:

“October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. - Section
III(A)(2), 54–55. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., “[a]
claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will
apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

7
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52–56.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework
With regard to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and
Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54, the
Examiner determines that independent claim 15 broadly “recite[s] the
concept of recommending a recipe and making a shopping list from the
recipe.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner characterizes the subject matter of
independent claim 15 as falling under the “Mental Processes” grouping of
abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Guidance because it “recite[s]
concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluations,
judgments, and opinions).” Id. The Examiner also characterizes claim 15 as
falling under the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of
abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Guidance because it “recite[s]
fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions (including
sales activities and behaviors).”4 Id.
In response, Appellant argues that independent claim 15 is not
directed to an abstract idea because “as a whole” claim 15 is “‘directed to’ a

4 For purposes conciseness, our analysis we will address only the first noted
“directed to” finding made by the Examiner.

Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

8
specific sort of ‘useful data file generation’ . . . with integrated advanced
computations of food preferences.” Reply Br. 3. For at least the following
reasons, we disagree.
Before determining whether the claim at issue is directed to an
abstract idea, we first determine to what the claim is directed, and whether
the claim recites a judicial exception. The Federal Circuit has explained that
“the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in
light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether
the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology
or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the
Specification, including the claim language, that claim 15 focuses on an
abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical
field.
In making this determination, we note that the Specification is titled
“SYSTEM, METHOD AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR RECIPE AND
SHOPPING LIST RECOMMENDATION,” and states that the disclosure
generally relates “to a recipe recommendation method,” and more
particularly to “understanding fine-grained user behavior and preferences to
provide better cooking or shopping planners.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to the
Specification, “[p]eople search and determine what to eat each week, what is
feasible to make and which of the options is best for their tastes given the
ingredients, tools, skill level, etc.” Id. ¶ 2. The Specification identifies that
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

9
“[c]onventional recipe recommendation techniques consider a very broad
level of parameters such as a level of skill, preferred foods, allergies, and
diet types to recommend a type of recipe to cook,” but points out that
“conventional techniques do not consider fine-grained preferences to
compute a fitness score to recommend a recipe (e.g., based on a time of day,
cooking skill for a particular class of recipes, availability of ingredients,
etc.).” Id. ¶ 3. To address these drawbacks, the Specification discloses that
the inventors have realized a technical solution to the technical
problem by understanding and updating fine-grained user food
preferences either explicitly input or inferred to recommend
dishes and map the dishes to the best suited recipes for the user.
Also, the inventors have realized the technical solution that,
based on the ingredients and cookery skills required for each of
these recipes, calculating a fitness-score to select the best recipe
for the user for each dish in the list. Therefore, the technical
solutions provide significantly more than the conventional
techniques that require user intervention and thinking because
the technical solutions allow the users to not have to consider
dishes they want to cook but instead automatically recommends
dishes and then recipes can be automatically inferred and
shopping lists can be generated.
Id. ¶ 5.
Consistent with this disclosure, independent claim 15 recites “[a]
recipe recommendation system” comprising “a processor” and “memory”
(limitations [a], [b]). The system includes processes to “infer a . . . user food
profile from user data,” based on data analysis, i.e., “latent semantic
indexing, compound term processing, or bag of words modelling with
ingredients in a recipe” (limitation [c]); “recommend a recipe . . . based on a
comparison of the . . . user food profile with recipe data stored in a database”
(limitation [d]); “extract ingredients from the recommended recipe”
(limitation [e]); “create a shopping list from the extracted ingredients”
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

10
(limitation [f]); and output “the shopping list to a store to adjust an inventory
order of the store according to the ingredients or the shopping list”
(limitation [i]). The system also includes processes to substitute ingredients
with “a different ingredient based on a dietary restriction” when creating the
shopping list (limitation [g]); output “the recommended recipe and the
shopping list . . . to a device of the user” (limitation [h]); and omit
ingredients from the shopping list based on “infer[ring] the ingredients
already present at the user’s home,” i.e., “analyzing how frequently the user
buys an item and when . . . last that the user bought the item based on
the . . . user food profile” (limitation [j]).
When considered collectively and under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the limitations of independent claim 15 simply recite a
method of “recommending a recipe” based on a series of steps for analyzing
data (e.g., inferring a user food profile, comparing the user food profile with
a recipe database), analyzing additional data to “mak[e] a shopping list from
the recipe” (e.g., extracting required ingredients, determining whether
required ingredients need to purchased/substituted based on the user food
profile), and outputting data.5 Cf. Final Act. 5. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 15 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental
process, i.e., “[a] concept[] performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 52 (footnote omitted).

5 We note that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240
(Fed. Cir. 2016). “The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis
does not impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241.
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

11
Our reviewing court has held similar concepts to be abstract. For
example, the Federal Circuit has held abstract the concepts of customizing
information based on known user information in Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Capital One Bank”); customizing a user interface based on user selections
in Affinity Laboratories of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266,
1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016); collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and processing
data and displaying the results of the analysis, manipulation, and processing
in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Finanicial. Corp., 850 F.3d
1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Capital One Fin.”); “selecting certain
information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or
displaying the results of the analysis” in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and “gathering and analyzing
information of a specified content, then displaying the results.” See Electric
Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Having concluded that claim 15 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea, we turn to Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Guidance
and determine whether the claim integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application of the judicial exception. Here we look to see if,
for example, any additional elements of the claim (i) reflect an improvement
in the functioning of a computer or to another technological field,
(ii) implement the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine,
(iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or (iv) use the judicial exception in some other meaningful
way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

12
technological environment. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55;
see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Here, the only additional elements recited in claim 15 beyond the
abstract idea are “a processor, a memory, a database, a data file, and a user
device” – elements that, as the Examiner observes (see Final Act. 6), are
described in the Specification “at a high level . . . without any meaningful
detail about their structure or configuration.” Id.; see also Spec. ¶ 67
(“[C]omputer system/server 12 in cloud computing node 10 is shown in the
form of a general-purpose computing circuit.”).
We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct
us to any indication, that the operations recited in claim 15 requires any
specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components,
i.e., a particular machine, invoke any asserted inventive programming, or
that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer
components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings,
Inc. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations
does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Independent
claim 15, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic
computer technology to analyze and present information for the purpose of
“recommending a recipe and making a shopping list from the recipe” (Final
Act. 5), and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. Cf. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they
“focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).

Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

13
Appellant argues that independent claim 15 provides “a technical
solution to a technical problem by understanding and updating fine-grained
user food preferences, either explicitly input or inferred, to recommend
dishes and map the dishes to the best-suited recipes for the user.” Reply
Br. 1; see also Appeal Br. 9–10. More particularly, Appellant asserts that
claim 15 is not directed to an abstract idea because it “uses [the] complex
technology of root cause analysis and further inferring the fine-grained user
food profile from the user data using latent semantic indexing, compound
term processing, or bag of words modelling with ingredients in a recipe that
are removed from an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphases omitted).
However, the focus of independent claim 15 is not on any
technological advancement to the way computers operate, but rather on the
implementation of the abstract idea, “for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool.” See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Here, the claimed process
of analyzing, comparing, and outputting data is recited without any
technological details on how the steps are performed technologically other
than using a conventional computer in its ordinary capacity to perform data
analysis. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that “obtaining and updating the
fine-grained user food profile in the manner claimed may provide more
accurate recommendations” (Ans. 5), but is a solution to a business problem
as opposed to an improvement to a technological or technical field. See OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more
accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The benefit of
the invention is not a technical or technological improvement, but rather, any
benefit lies in the analysis, i.e., correlating, associating, aggregating,
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

14
comparing, of data. See also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“The
advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing
information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any
particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.”).
Appellant further contends that, like the claims of Trading
Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir.
2017), claim 15 “is ‘directed to a specific improvement to the way
computers operate.’” Appeal Br. 9–11. We disagree.
In Trading Technologies, the district court found that the claimed
devices “have no ‘pre-electronic trading analog,’” and “do not simply claim
displaying information on a graphical user interface.” 675 Fed. App’x
at 1004. The court concluded “the claimed subject matter is ‘directed to a
specific improvement to the way computers operate,’ . . . for the claimed
graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading
system ‘directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in
the software arts.’” Id. at 1006 (citations omitted).
We distinguish the claims before us from those in Trading
Technologies, because, unlike in Trading Technologies, independent
claim 15 merely utilizes a generic and conventional “computer” (Spec. ¶ 67)
to perform data analysis. As discussed above, claim 15 does not overcome a
problem associated with prior art computers or improve the way computers
operate. Instead, the claim here is similar to those of Trading Technologies
International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1094, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2019) that
did not “solve any purported technological problem.” Any improvement lies
in the process of “recommending a recipe and making a shopping list from
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

15
the recipe,” the abstract idea itself, and not to any technological
improvement.
Finally, Appellant argues that the present “invention has very specific
features that do not pre-empt the technology.” Appeal Br. 11. However, a
lack of complete preemption does not make the claims any less abstract. See
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility.”); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362–1363 (“[T]hat the
claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract.”).
Accordingly, we conclude claim 15 does not contain an element or
combination of elements that impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea
that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 15 is directed
to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of
the 2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements
amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

16
Here, we agree with the Examiner that claim 15 does “not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial[] exception.” See Final Act. 7–9. We find supported the
Examiner’s determination that claim 15’s limitations, taken individually or
as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception. See id. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
determination. Appellant provides no argument or reasoning regarding this
determination. See Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 1–7.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination
that the limitations of claim 15 do not transform the claim into significantly
more than the abstract idea.
For at least the reasons above, we are not persuaded, on the present
record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 15, and claims 1, 4–8, 11–14, and 18–20, which fall with
independent claim 15.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1, and its dependent claims,
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as “indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant
means by ‘the last,’” as recited by claim 1. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner
rejects independent claims 8 and 15, and their dependent claims, based on
the same bases. Id. at 3. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Instead, Appellant submits that the
“§ 112(b) issue will be resolved by amending the claims to recite ‘. . . when
as the last time that the user bought the item . . .’, via Examiner’s
amendment or the like.” Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-005048
Application 15/224,568

17
Therefore, the rejection is summarily sustained.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–8, 11–
15, 18–20
101 Eligibility 1, 4–8, 11–
15, 18–20

1, 4–8, 11–
15, 18–20
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 4–8, 11–
15, 18–20

Overall
Outcome
1, 4–8, 11–
15, 18–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED